DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
This application contains claims directed to more than one species of the generic invention. These species are deemed to lack unity of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
The species are as follows:
Species A1 – wherein in the molded tire assembly process, the tread rubber, which has been vulcanized, is wrapped around and attached to an outer circumference of the base tire via unvulcanized cushion rubber.
Species A2 – wherein in the molded tire assembly process, the tread rubber, which has not been vulcanized, is wrapped around and attached to an outer circumference of the base tire.
Applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single species to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. The reply must also identify the claims readable on the elected species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered non-responsive unless accompanied by an election.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which are written in dependent form or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowed generic claim. Currently, the following claim(s) are generic: claim 1.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Species A1 and Species A2 lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of “a base tire preparation process preparing a base tire, which is a tire body part of a used tire and will become the tire body part; a molded tire assembly process assembling a molded tire by attaching tread rubber, which will become the tread rubber part, to outer circumference side of the base tire that is prepared; a molded tire vulcanization process vulcanizing the molded tire that is assembled; and a sipe formation process forming a sipe on a surface of a tread of the molded tire that is vulcanized”, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Colby et al. (US 20160207267).
Colby discloses a tire manufacturing method for obtaining a tire that comprises a tire body part (Fig. 3: 130) and a tread rubber part (Fig. 3: 110), comprising: a base tire preparation process preparing a base tire (Fig. 3: 130) ([0041]), which is a tire body part of a used tire and will become the tire body part (Abstract: wherein the tire is a retreaded tire and thus the tire body part is a used tire); a molded tire assembly process assembling a molded tire by attaching tread rubber (Figs. 1-3: 110), which will become the tread rubber part, to outer circumference side of the base tire (Fig. 3: 130) that is prepared ([0041]); a molded tire vulcanization process (Fig. 3) vulcanizing the molded tire that is assembled ([0016], [0041]); and a sipe formation process forming a sipe (Fig. 6: 150’) on a surface of a tread of the molded tire that is vulcanized ([0043]-[0045], [0048]).
During a telephone conversation with Tatsuya Sawada on 01/15/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species A1, claim 2. Affirmation of this election must be made by Applicant in replying to this Office action.
Claims 3, 9, 11, 13, and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention or species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions have unity of invention (37 CFR 1.475(a)), applicant must provide reasons in support thereof. Applicant may submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. Where such evidence or admission is provided by applicant, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a base tire preparation process preparing” in line 2 should be written as –a base tire preparation process comprising preparing—for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a molded tire assembly process assembling” in line 5 should be written as –a molded tire assembly process comprising assembling—for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “attaching tread rubber” in lines 5-6 should be written as –attaching a tread rubber—for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “to outer circumference side” in line 6 should be written as –to an outer circumference side—for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a molded tire vulcanization process vulcanizing” in line 8 should be written as –a molded tire vulcanization process comprising vulcanizing—for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a sipe formation process forming” in line 10 should be written as –a sipe formation process comprising forming—for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “an outer circumference of the base tire” in lines 3-4 should be written as –the outer circumference side of the base tire—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “via unvulcanized cushion rubber” in line 4 should be written as –via an unvulcanized cushion rubber—for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “so that depth” in line 3 should be written as –so that a depth—for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “so that depth” in line 2 should be written as –so that a depth—for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “the plurality of the sipes” in line 3 lacks sufficient antecedent basis because a singular sipe was disclosed in claim 1, and now “the sipes” is being referenced. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes a plurality of sipes.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “the plurality of the sipes” in line 2 lacks sufficient antecedent basis because a singular sipe was disclosed in claim 1, and now “the sipes” is being referenced. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes a plurality of sipes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Colby et al. (US 20160207267).
Regarding claim 1, Colby discloses a tire manufacturing method for obtaining a tire that comprises a tire body part (Fig. 3: 130) and a tread rubber part (Fig. 3: 110), comprising: a base tire preparation process preparing a base tire (Fig. 3: 130) ([0041]), which is a tire body part of a used tire and will become the tire body part (Abstract: wherein the tire is a retreaded tire and thus the tire body part is a used tire); a molded tire assembly process assembling a molded tire by attaching tread rubber (Figs. 1-3: 110), which will become the tread rubber part, to outer circumference side of the base tire (Fig. 3: 130) that is prepared ([0011]-[0012], [0022], [0029], [0041]); a molded tire vulcanization process (Fig. 3) vulcanizing the molded tire that is assembled ([0016], [0030], [0041]); and a sipe formation process forming a sipe (Fig. 6: 150’) on a surface of a tread of the molded tire that is vulcanized ([0024]-[0025], [0033], [0042]-[0045], [0048]).
Regarding claim 2, Colby further discloses in the molded tire assembly process, the tread rubber (Figs. 1-7: 110), which has been vulcanized, is wrapped around and attached to an outer circumference of the base tire via unvulcanized cushion rubber (Figs. 3-4, 6: 132) ([0011]-[0012], [0022], [0029], [0041]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Colby et al. (US 20160207267).
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Colby further discloses the step of forming one or more voids along the top side may form any arrangement of voids along the top side as desired, whether grooves or sipes, extending in a direction of the tread width or length, or at any angle biased thereto, which may result in a desired tread pattern (Fig. 5: see 142 for positioning of inclined voids, which exemplify grooves but may also be sipes) ([0042]: wherein the voids may be grooves or sipes). In other words, in the sipe formation process, the sipe may be formed in a straight line in a direction that is inclined with respect to the tire circumferential direction of the molded tire.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Colby further discloses the step of forming one or more voids along the top side may form any arrangement of voids along the top side as desired, whether grooves or sipes, extending in a direction of the tread width or length, or at any angle biased thereto, which may result in a desired tread pattern (Fig. 5: see 142 for positioning of inclined voids, which exemplify grooves but may also be sipes) ([0042]: wherein the voids may be grooves or sipes). In other words, in the sipe formation process, a plurality of the sipes may be formed spaced apart from one another in the tire circumferential direction of the molded tire.
Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colby et al. (US 20160207267) as applied to claim 1-2 above, and further in view of Nagahara (JP 2012051470, see machine translation).
Regarding claims 4 and 8, Colby further discloses the step of forming one or more voids into the tread thickness may be performed by any method using any tread removal member known to one of ordinary skill in the art ([0034]). Moreover, the step of forming one or more voids along the top side may form any arrangement of voids along the top side as desired, whether grooves or sipes, extending in a direction of the tread width or length, or at any angle biased thereto, which may result in a desired tread pattern ([0042]).
However, Colby does not expressly recite in the sipe formation process, the sipe is formed avoiding a joint portion in the tire circumferential direction of the tread rubber of the molded tire.
Nagahara discloses a method of applying a vulcanized tread to a precure tire in which a tread pattern is formed and vulcanized ([0001]), wherein sipes are formed at a distance of 5 mm or 10 mm from a vulcanized tread joint (Figs. 5-6) ([0037]-[0039]), and wherein conventionally the distance is 1 mm (Fig. 4) ([0036]). Using a vulcanized tread according to the embodiment and a conventional vulcanized tread with a different joining position, the working time required for the process of adhering the vulcanized tread to the base tire and the finished state were affected ([0040]). In particular, there are no defects such as poor shape of the land blocks or sipe filling with the inventive examples ([0041]), which have sipes further away from the joint than is conventional. In other words, it is generally known in the tire retread art to form sipes so as to avoid a joint portion in the tire circumferential direction of the tread rubber of the molded tire. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Colby in order to provide the sipe is formed avoiding a joint portion in the tire circumferential direction of the tread rubber of the molded tire as is generally known in the tire for the advantages as taught by Nagahara above.
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colby et al. (US 20160207267) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Endo (JP 2014097697, see machine translation).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Colby further discloses the step of forming one or more voids along the top side may form any arrangement of voids along the top side as desired, whether grooves or sipes, extending in a direction of the tread width or length, or at any angle biased thereto, which may result in a desired tread pattern, and the voids may extend to any desired depth of the tread thickness ([0042]). Furthermore, a depth control member may control the depth in any manner, wherein any depth control member may be adjustable—such as by adjusting its position, size, or by substitution (where a different depth control member is employed) to adjust the depth by with the material removal member forms the void ([0047]).
However, Colby does not expressly recite in the sipe formation process, the sipe is formed so that depth of the sipe becomes deeper as it approaches the center in the tire width direction of the molded tire.
Endo discloses a tire tread comprising sipes (Figs. 1-2: 5) that improves driving performance on icy roads, water removal effect, and steering stability on dry roads ([0001]-[0002], [0009]), wherein the groove depth of the sipes on the outer side of the land portions in the tire width direction is shallower than on the outer side in the tire width direction (Figs. 2, 4-8, 10-11), and the rigidity of the outer side of the land portions in the tire width direction is higher than on the inner side in the tire width direction ([0011], [0041]). This allows the vehicle to maintain steering stability on dry road surfaces ([0011], [0041]). Therefore, this pneumatic tire can achieve both driving performance on icy roads and steering stability on dry roads ([0011], [0041]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Colby in order to form the sipe so that depth of the sipe becomes deeper as it approaches the center in the tire width direction of the molded tire for the advantages discussed above as taught by Endo.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEDEF PAQUETTE (née AYALP) whose telephone number is (571) 272-5031. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST - 4:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KATELYN SMITH (née WHATLEY) can be reached on (571) 270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. The fax phone number for the examiner is (571) 273-5031.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749